Minimum-wage claim by unlisted casual workers fails absent proof of direct engagement by BSNL.

The petitioner, a registered union representing unlisted casual workers engaged in various BSNL sub-divisions in West Bengal, challenged the award dated 20 November 2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata, in Reference No. 49 of 2013.

The workmen performed landline maintenance, cable-joint repair, WLL-related work, night-guard and sweeping duties, among others.

The union alleged that the workers were engaged in BSNL-related activities but were not paid wages equivalent to the minimum wages notified by the Central Government, unlike listed casual labourers.

After conciliation failed, the dispute was referred under Sections 10(1)(d) and 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The reference concerned whether BSNL’s failure to provide sufficient maintenance funds to telephone mechanics, enabling them to pay at least the notified minimum wages to external or unlisted casual labourers engaged occasionally, was justified.

The Tribunal rejected the workmen’s claim, principally because the union failed to produce documentary evidence, including vouchers proving payment and engagement by BSNL.

Whether the Tribunal’s award rejecting the union’s claim for payment of minimum wages to unlisted casual workers was legally sustainable in the absence of documentary evidence establishing their engagement by BSNL?

Whether the materials relied upon by the petitioners, including the work order issued by a Sub-Divisional Engineer, established a contractual or employment relationship between BSNL and the unlisted casual workers so as to make BSNL liable for their wages?

Whether the Tribunal’s award dated 20 November 2024 required interference in writ jurisdiction?

The Court considered the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Sections 10(1)(d) and 10(2A), under which the industrial dispute had been referred for adjudication.

It also considered the petitioner’s reliance on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, including the definition of “employer” under Section 2(e), and the general principle that an employer engaging labour in a scheduled employment must comply with the minimum rates of wages notified by the competent Government.

The Tribunal further stated that, where BSNL directly or through a contractor engages casual labour, it cannot evade its statutory obligation to pay the applicable minimum wages; however, liability must first be established by proof of such engagement.

No judicial precedent was relied upon by either party or applied by the High Court.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s evidentiary assessment.

Although the union alleged that the workers were engaged in BSNL’s work and were paid through vouchers, its witness failed to produce the alleged vouchers or other documentary material proving engagement, payment, or supervision by BSNL.

BSNL denied having engaged the workers and asserted that field staff or telephone mechanics had independently engaged labourers for day-to-day work.

The work order relied upon by the union merely requested M/s Safikul Alam to carry out certain work and did not establish a contract, employment relationship, or wage obligation in favour of the petitioners.

In these circumstances, the general statutory obligation to pay minimum wages could not be invoked without proof that BSNL was the employer or principal employer of the concerned workers.

Since the Tribunal’s conclusion was based on the absence of reliable documentary evidence and was not shown to be perverse or contrary to law, the High Court found no ground for exercising writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition, WPA 22910 of 2025, was dismissed.

All connected applications were disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.